Legal Opinion
Amerbelle Corp. v. Hommel
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided July 2, 2003No. 3:03CV355 PCDPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
DORSEY, District Judge.
Defendants move to dismiss this complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is granted as to Defendant Color Works, Inc.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, The Amerbelle Corporation (“Amerbelle”), is a Connecticut corporation authorized to do business in Connecticut. Compl. ¶ 1. Defendant, Jimmie Hommel (“Hommel”), was formally employed by Amerbelle as a laboratory manager from 1998 until 2001, during which time Hom-mel resided in Connecticut. Id. ¶2. Defendant, Color Works, Inc. (“Color Works”), is a…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., United Dominion Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Doe I v. CiolliDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2009
- MacCallum v. New York Yankees PartnershipDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2005
- Chirag v. MT Marida Marguerite SchiffahrtsDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2013
- Collins v. Alonso, Andalkar & Facher, P.C.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2021
- Friedman v. Bloomberg LPDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2016
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.